The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Vixen]

Pro-Mignini author John Follain wrote in "A Death in Italy" that Mignini spend the first year of AK's and RS's preventative detention wonder why RS wasn't 'breaking', and continuing to not turn on Amanda.

Without Raffaele, Follain implied, there was nothing - not really against Knox.

Remember what saved the case for Mignini? It was when the year-limit was approaching, when they were either formally charged, or released....

... that journalists dug up Quintavalle, the store keeper, and Nara, the neighbour who said she heard screams.

That came up as the year was about to expire, so at least Mignini had *something* to take to court, absent Raffaele taking a deal to get at Knox.

As it was, when Stefanoni's forensic claims finally were analyzed by independent experts, the DNA fell apart - meaning mainly that there was no case against Sollecito.

With no case against him, what was the case against Knox? Even Stefanoni had not found anything which could be traced back to her, meaning she'd never been in the murderroom.

If Knox had returned to stage a sexual assault, how on earth had she managed not to step in blood?

In any event, the fact if no evidence against the pair is what acquitted the pair. Mignini waited and waited and waited, but a smoking gun was never found.

Raffaele risked everything for the truth about Knox, that she was innocent. And he knew it. And Mignini trying to tie him to the murder - hoping Raffaele would buckle, by taking a plea - eventually was a losing prosecution strategy. Raffaele stood firm. And with no case against him, what was the case against Knox?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.


I didn't know you were sentimental.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please try to follow how this was dealt with in court, legally. Tagliabracci for the defence argued in court that the DNA testing was suspect centric. This was weighed up by the court and cross-examined. The claim was rejected.

There was no finding that the forensic police had been suspect-centric but entirely objective and impartial.

Please try to follow how the Supreme Court threw out the lower court's verdict, legally, on the grounds that the lower court made gross errors in law. It seems you still don't (or won't) understand this. Why?

 

[Vixen]

LOL! And yet every single independent DNA expert who reviewed Stefanoni's work on the bra and knife agreed with C & V's report and none agreed with Stefanoni's.

Would you like, yet again, a list of all those prominent scientists? Here's the list of those that agree with Stefanoni:



And there it is! The "go to" accusation for any judge, expert, or witness who doesn't agree with your opinion. All dozens of them.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716696379709a87a8a.png[/qimg]

All that matters is what happens in the Court of Criminal Law.

Knox and Sollecito had a lengthy and fair trial.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.


I didn't know you were sentimental.

I love how you're completely failing to see the delicious irony of your accusation

 

[LondonJohn]

All that matters is what happens in the Court of Criminal Law.

Knox and Sollecito had a lengthy and fair trial.

Yes, ultimately they did: they were fairly acquitted in the Supreme Court.

All that matters is what happens in the court of criminal law, Vixen.

 

[Vixen]

Still waiting for a quote and citation that the defense concurred there was a scratch/striation on the knife.

I'm beginning to suspect Vixen may never provide one. Hmmmm....one has to wonder why that is?

Patrizia Stefnanoni's testimony, which was accepted by the court, as per her presentation.

Not sure why you and the producers of the Netflix film try to encourage a false belief in the hoax 'there was no scratch mark'. Have to instil a suspicion of a Conspiracy Theory against 'the kids', eh?

 

[Vixen]

Yes, ultimately they did: they were fairly acquitted in the Supreme Court.

All that matters is what happens in the court of criminal law, Vixen.

They were acquitted by a controversial Supreme Court after a fair trial and fair appeal upheld guilty convictions. Whilst the verdict might be 'insufficient evidence', para 230.2, the legal facts found, and remain, as set out in the final Supreme Court written reasons:

• Knox was definitely present when Meredith Kercher was murdered, and Sollecito almost certainly.
• Knox did wash her hands of Kercher's blood.
• The burglary was staged, after the murder.
• The pair switched off their phones ahead of the murder.
• Sollecito lied at least three times in police statements about his activities that night.
• Sollecito did have a major 'flooding' incident.
• Knox did carry a mop to and from the cottage to his bedsit in a 'clean up' on the night of the murder.
• Sollecito lied about being on his computer and about his father's phone call at 11:30pm.
• Sollecito lied about sleeping until 10:00 as he listened to his father's 'missed call' at 5:00am and played Fight Brothers and Come as You Are.
• Marasca & Bruno believe Knox named Lumumba 'to cover up for Guede'.
• Sollecito cynically only rang up the police after they had already arrived.

As the case was never referred back to a merits/Appeal court, these legal facts remain as the facts of the matter, as weighted and cross-examined by all parties in front of a panel of judges and lay judges.

 

[Vixen]

We should recall that Stefanoni, claiming that her quantitative real-time PCR DNA analysis equipment was not working properly, switched to Qubit fluorescence quantitation for the knife samples. That method is not specific to human DNA and is not highly sensitive. The Qubit reading was that no DNA was detectable in samples 36B (the knife blade) and C. She tested 36B despite there being no detectable DNA by her method, although she did not for the other samples where there was no DNA detectable by Qubit. The amount of DNA seemingly present in the single sample of 36B tested was similar to the amount in at least one of her contaminated negative (that is, no DNA intentionally added) controls. There were inconsistencies and missing data on methodology in Stefanoni's original lab records which lead to significant uncertainties as to the reliability and scientific integrity of the results for sample 36B. The results for 36B cannot be considered admissible forensic evidence according to international standards for DNA profile testing.

See: http://amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

Unfortunately, the Nencini and Massei court ruled it was permissible.

 

[LondonJohn]

They were acquitted by a controversial Supreme Court after a fair trial and fair appeal upheld guilty convictions. Whilst the verdict might be 'insufficient evidence', para 230.2, the legal facts found, and remain, as set out in the final Supreme Court written reasons:

• Knox was definitely present when Meredith Kercher was murdered, and Sollecito almost certainly.
• Knox did wash her hands of Kercher's blood.
• The burglary was staged, after the murder.
• The pair switched off their phones ahead of the murder.
• Sollecito lied at least three times in police statements about his activities that night.
• Sollecito did have a major 'flooding' incident.
• Knox did carry a mop to and from the cottage to his bedsit in a 'clean up' on the night of the murder.
• Sollecito lied about being on his computer and about his father's phone call at 11:30pm.
• Sollecito lied about sleeping until 10:00 as he listened to his father's 'missed call' at 5:00am and played Fight Brothers and Come as You Are.
• Marasca & Bruno believe Knox named Lumumba 'to cover up for Guede'.
• Sollecito cynically only rang up the police after they had already arrived.

As the case was never referred back to a merits/Appeal court, these legal facts remain as the facts of the matter, as weighted and cross-examined by all parties in front of a panel of judges and lay judges.

1) None of which has any bearing on their guilt of murder.

2) The Marasca SC was more-or-less obliged to find a way to affirm Knox's criminal slander conviction into its verdict, since that conviction had already received separate prior SC affirmation. That was before the ECHR obliterated this criminal slander verdict and the unlawful way in which it was obtained. Didn't you know that?

 

[LondonJohn]

Unfortunately, the Nencini and Massei court ruled it was permissible.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck out the Nencini and Massei court judgements, Vixen. Did you not know that?

 

[LondonJohn]

Patrizia Stefnanoni's testimony, which was accepted by the court, as per her presentation.

Not sure why you and the producers of the Netflix film try to encourage a false belief in the hoax 'there was no scratch mark'. Have to instil a suspicion of a Conspiracy Theory against 'the kids', eh?

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52511701326_033ae96fbc.jpg[/qimg]

LOL Presenting one of those guilter graphics as "proof", huh?

It's a shame that you have an insufficient understanding of forensic science to enable you to determine that the forensic "evidence" against Knox and Sollecito in this case never came anywhere remotely close to being credible or reliable. Fortunately, the Supreme Court belatedly remedied this grotesque error by the lower courts by ruling that those courts never should have accepted any of this evidence as serious or credible. It might benefit you to do some effective research & learning in order to find out why that should be.

 

[Numbers]

Unfortunately, the Nencini and Massei court ruled it was permissible.

The Nencini and Massei courts violated Italian procedural law CPP 192, paragraph 2 by using inadmissible, unreliable, and non-credible alleged evidence to form inferences of "fact".

That is one of the many reasons why the Marasca CSC panel quashed the Nencini judgment. When the Marasca CSC panel delivered its judgment, the Massei judgment had been already quashed by the Hellmann court of appeal.

Despite your abysmal mischaracterizations of Italian law, it is the Marasca CSC panel judgment of acquittal that is the final judgment of the charges against Knox and Sollecito.

The only exception to the finality of that judgment is the possible revision under Italian law of Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, which had been made final by the Chieffi CSC panel. That judgment was found to be the result of an unfair trial to two violations of international law by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy.

 

[Vixen]

LOL Presenting one of those guilter graphics as "proof", huh?

It's a shame that you have an insufficient understanding of forensic science to enable you to determine that the forensic "evidence" against Knox and Sollecito in this case never came anywhere remotely close to being credible or reliable. Fortunately, the Supreme Court belatedly remedied this grotesque error by the lower courts by ruling that those courts never should have accepted any of this evidence as serious or credible. It might benefit you to do some effective research & learning in order to find out why that should be.

It is my own graphic, and as researched by myself (the template design was by another).

Vecchiotti in her testimony:

we highlight here too thin streaks, here they are, which extend approximately in the middle of the blade. At the level of the leading edge, here too, the blade on the handle, these are the striations, this is an area of darker color as well as was also the other side on the right edge, which extends to a height of the blade for a maximum size of about 0.6 cm and for almost 1 cm at a lower level in correspondence of the beak of a flute. Also in this level, at the level of the leading edge of the blade with the handle, the color material, this material is present in a dark color, extended to approximately the thickness of one millimeter.

Source: Hellman - Zanetti Court

Testimony of Conti-Vecchiotti Jump to: navigation, search This report is opened at 09:00. The President states that the minutes for the current investigation are prepared with the stenotype in integral form of the sensitivity and complexity of the facts of the trial, in accordance with Article 134 and following of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Constitution of the parties. (Omitted). It is recognized that the experts are Professor Stefano Conti and Professor Carla Vecchiotti, experts appointed by this Court by order made on 18 December 2010. It is recognized also that there are the following Consultants: Knox defense, Dr. Walter and Dr. Sara Gino Patumi; Sollecito defense, Professor Adriano Tagliabracci and Professor Valerio Honors; Prosecutor's Office, Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni and Professor Giuseppe Novelli; Kercher Family plaintiffs, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and Professor Anna Lucia Nurini.

From Nencini Court Day 6, 26 November 2013

Crini for the Prosecution:

CRINI: in addition to the genetic profile, "a good profile", this was also the word used by Professor Vecchiotti, "A good profile" by Knox Amanda at a point on the handle most projected on the side of the blade, it is also interesting to note that there is another profile, more complex to read, but the experts have wonderfully identified, which is the the profile of the same Knox Amanda, at the point of junction between the blade and the handle.
[Later] But let's say that at the point where DNA is found, there in that particular position, certainly is a point that is much more significant at the level of improper use than the DNA found on the handle, because that is not a point of normal contact, is a point where DNA is hiding, so to speak, as well as Meredith's DNA hidden in the striata, it's a place to hide after obviously there was a wash. And which DNA can be hiding there after washing? You have understood what I mean. That's why I say that this element, of the knife compared to the Knox, is a significant analysis, because there Knox has a close relationship with this knife, very strong.
… a serious wash, but it leaves more DNA in the part that holds it and less DNA in the least part of it. Indeed, the blade was destined to have no trace of it, if the DNA did not get embedded at the point where it was concealed, in that striata of the blade, fortunately for us and unfortunately for the defendants.
• The knife is outlined perfectly by a blood stain on the sheet and fits the large neck wound.
• The bruises and marks around Meredith’s lower face indicates an attempt to cover her mouth to stop her screaming.

Crini begins with housekeeping technicalities.
• Crini heavily criticises Conti & Vecchiotti in their methodology and failing to give any credit to the prosecution forensic experts, Professors Novelli and Torrecelli, one of the reasons the appeal was sent back down by the Chieffi Supreme Court.
• He defends Dr. Stefanoni against criticisms of procedural flaws.
• He refers to Vecchiotti’s brushes with authorities over her professional methods.
• He mentions the fridges in her own laboratories do not even have a thermometer.

 

[Vixen]

The Nencini and Massei courts violated Italian procedural law CPP 192, paragraph 2 by using inadmissible, unreliable, and non-credible alleged evidence to form inferences of "fact".

That is one of the many reasons why the Marasca CSC panel quashed the Nencini judgment. When the Marasca CSC panel delivered its judgment, the Massei judgment had been already quashed by the Hellmann court of appeal.

Despite your abysmal mischaracterizations of Italian law, it is the Marasca CSC panel judgment of acquittal that is the final judgment of the charges against Knox and Sollecito.

The only exception to the finality of that judgment is the possible revision under Italian law of Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, which had been made final by the Chieffi CSC panel. That judgment was found to be the result of an unfair trial to two violations of international law by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy.

Absolute nonsense. The Supreme Court does not find facts nor weigh up evidence. All it does is rubber stamp the verdict of the appeal court or refer it back. In this case, it anulled the sentences but didn't state that any of the facts were defective.

It dreamt up a claim of 'press interference' - when Italy doesn't have any sub judice laws and indeed has the exact opposite, of gathering evidence far and wide, wherever it appears. In addition it erred in resurrecting Vecchiotti's ridiculous claims, which had been thrown out by the Chieffi Court and as dismissed by Nencini.

 

[Vixen]

1) None of which has any bearing on their guilt of murder.

2) The Marasca SC was more-or-less obliged to find a way to affirm Knox's criminal slander conviction into its verdict, since that conviction had already received separate prior SC affirmation. That was before the ECHR obliterated this criminal slander verdict and the unlawful way in which it was obtained. Didn't you know that?

So what do you think Marasca-Bruno meant when they wrote the following in their final written reasons (motivational report)?:

Another element against her is certainly constituted by the false accusations [calunnia] against Mr. Lumumba, afore-mentioned above. It is not understandable, in fact, what reason could have driven the young woman to produce such serious accusations. The theory that she did so in order to escape psychological pressure from detectives seems extremely fragile, given that the woman [47] could not fail to realize that such accusations directed against her boss would turn out to be false very soon, given that, as she knew very well, Mr. Lumumba had no relationship with Ms. Kercher nor with the Via della Pergola house. Furthermore, the ability to present an ironclad alibi would have allowed Lumumba to obtain release and subsequently the dropping of charges. However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the current appellant, insofar as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her. This is confirmed by the fact that Mr. Lumumba, like Mr. Guede, is a man of colour, hence the indication of the first one would be safe in the event that the latter could have been seen by someone while entering or exiting the apartment.
And moreover, the staging of a theft in Romanelli’s room, which she is accused of, is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion (location of glass shards – apparently resulting from the breaking of a glass window pane caused by the throwing of a rock from the outside – on top of, but also under clothes and furniture), a staging, which can be linked to someone who – as an author of the murder and a flatmate [titolare] with a formal [“qualified”] connection to the dwelling – had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself, while a third murderer in contrast would be motivated by a very different urge after the killing, that is to leave the apartment as quickly as possible.

Why would Marasca-Bruno believe Knox was covering up for Guede in naming Lumumba if they believe she is innocent? On the contrary, they appear to not consider her innocent at all!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So what do you think Marasca-Bruno meant when they wrote the following in their final written reasons (motivational report)?:









Why would Marasca-Bruno believe Knox was covering up for Guede in naming Lumumba if they believe she is innocent? On the contrary, they appear to not consider her innocent at all!

There's nothing there which says they *believe* she was covering up for Guede. They say it's hard to understand why she would accuse Lumumba as the wild accusation had no prospect of being accepted (almost as if she didn't have some Macchiavellian plan) and then they consider how it might be viewed as part of a hypothesis where she tried to divert attention from Guede in the hope that would prevent him from making similar wild accusations against her.

It's a feeble hypothesis and there's no hint they actually believe it. Certainly there's no hint they reckon she was in any way involved in the murder. Only a remarkably biased reading might leave a reader thinking they implied that.

 

[TomG]

• Knox was definitely present when Meredith Kercher was murdered, and Sollecito almost certainly.
• Knox did wash her hands of Kercher's blood.
• The burglary was staged, after the murder.
• The pair switched off their phones ahead of the murder.
• Sollecito lied at least three times in police statements about his activities that night.
• Sollecito did have a major 'flooding' incident.
• Knox did carry a mop to and from the cottage to his bedsit in a 'clean up' on the night of the murder.
• Sollecito lied about being on his computer and about his father's phone call at 11:30pm.
• Sollecito lied about sleeping until 10:00 as he listened to his father's 'missed call' at 5:00am and played Fight Brothers and Come as You Are.
• Marasca & Bruno believe Knox named Lumumba 'to cover up for Guede'.
• Sollecito cynically only rang up the police after they had already arrived.

Knox was definitely present when Meredith Kercher was murdered, and Sollecito almost certainly.

In a strange limbo that no one can make any sense of, including you.

Knox did wash her hands of Kercher's blood.

Yet Peter Gill stated in his analysis of the case that the claim is "not backed up by any scientific evidence beyond the sub-source inference."

The burglary was staged, after the murder.

Even M/B struggle with this. Not by K&S it wasn't. They are acquitted of the charge.

The pair switched off their phones ahead of the murder.

To get peace and quiet to get intimate.

Sollecito lied at least three times in police statements about his activities that night.

*

Sollecito did have a major 'flooding' incident.

His kitchen pipe leaked. So what?

Knox did carry a mop to and from the cottage to his bedsit in a 'clean up' on the night of the murder.

To mop up the leaked water. So what?

Sollecito lied about being on his computer and about his father's phone call at 11:30pm.

*

Sollecito lied about sleeping until 10:00 as he listened to his father's 'missed call' at 5:00am and played Fight Brothers and Come as You Are.

*

Marasca & Bruno believe Knox named Lumumba 'to cover up for Guede'.

*Do they? They say "It is not understood, however, what pushed the young American to make these serious accusations." What they suggest about Amanda covering for Guede appears to be a hypothesis.

Sollecito cynically only rang up the police after they had already arrived

Where do M/B uphold that?

*If you are going to allege lies then you have to provide sound evidence to substantiate the lie, or you have to concede that he was trying to make sense of a perfectly ordinary evening and getting his memories confused due to smoking too much weed. If K&S had been involved in the murder they'd have worked out an alibi between them that was as tight as a duck's derriere, since they had plenty of time to do so. But nope, instead they do the opposite. They are perhaps guilty of being a pair of pot-addled kids and not appreciating the urgency of the situation or the predicament they were in, but that's about it. There is no sustainable evidence to indicate otherwise.

Hoots

 

[Numbers]

Absolute nonsense. The Supreme Court does not find facts nor weigh up evidence. All it does is rubber stamp the verdict of the appeal court or refer it back. In this case, it anulled the sentences but didn't state that any of the facts were defective.
It dreamt up a claim of 'press interference' - when Italy doesn't have any sub judice laws and indeed has the exact opposite, of gathering evidence far and wide, wherever it appears. In addition it erred in resurrecting Vecchiotti's ridiculous claims, which had been thrown out by the Chieffi Court and as dismissed by Nencini.

1. The first paragraph of the quoted post consists entirely of false statements. See CPP Articles 606 and 620 to read the actual legal authority of the CSC.

2. The second paragraph falsely claims that the Chieffi CSC panel threw out the findings in the report submitted by the DNA forensic experts to the Hellmann court of appeal. That is false. The report is a document in the case file that retains its validity, and under Italian law, a court does not have the legal authority to arbitrarily contradict the technical or scientific findings of experts.

3. The reference by the Marasca CSC panel to the media in its MR, brought out in the second paragraph in the quoted post, only serves as dicta to provide a reason why the investigation went off course. It isn't given as a reason for the annulment of the Nencini appeal court judgment. Those reasons are based upon the text of the case file, including the Nencini appeal court MR.

 

[Vixen]

There's nothing there which says they *believe* she was covering up for Guede. They say it's hard to understand why she would accuse Lumumba as the wild accusation had no prospect of being accepted (almost as if she didn't have some Macchiavellian plan) and then they consider how it might be viewed as part of a hypothesis where she tried to divert attention from Guede in the hope that would prevent him from making similar wild accusations against her.

It's a feeble hypothesis and there's no hint they actually believe it. Certainly there's no hint they reckon she was in any way involved in the murder. Only a remarkably biased reading might leave a reader thinking they implied that.

Judges do not hypothesise. Judges are paid to judge. They are expected to come to a decision. Judges are not paid to philosophise. A Supreme Court Judge is paid to make a final determination.

In Italy, this duty goes further. A judge is obliged to provide written reasons for the decision he or she has come to. In determining that Knox was guilty, as charged, for the crime of Calunnia, those words about Knox covering up for Guede are the written reasons for the verdict.

Having said that, the reason given is unusual insofar no lower court found that 'Knox covered up for Guede', so a bit of a curve ball.

 

[Vixen]

In a strange limbo that no one can make any sense of, including you.


Yet Peter Gill stated in his analysis of the case that the claim is "not backed up by any scientific evidence beyond the sub-source inference."


Even M/B struggle with this. Not by K&S it wasn't. They are acquitted of the charge.


To get peace and quiet to get intimate.


*

His kitchen pipe leaked. So what?


To mop up the leaked water. So what?


*

*

*Do they? They say "It is not understood, however, what pushed the young American to make these serious accusations." What they suggest about Amanda covering for Guede appears to be a hypothesis.


Where do M/B uphold that?

*If you are going to allege lies then you have to provide sound evidence to substantiate the lie, or you have to concede that he was trying to make sense of a perfectly ordinary evening and getting his memories confused due to smoking too much weed. If K&S had been involved in the murder they'd have worked out an alibi between them that was as tight as a duck's derriere, since they had plenty of time to do so. But nope, instead they do the opposite. They are perhaps guilty of being a pair of pot-addled kids and not appreciating the urgency of the situation or the predicament they were in, but that's about it. There is no sustainable evidence to indicate otherwise.

Hoots

Peter Gill was not a witness at the trial. He was not cross-examined. He did not see the primary evidence nor the treatment of same.

As for your would, could, should, anyone can rationalise anything.

If you read Sollecito's second statement to the police, you will see that Sollecito does indeed confirm that his first statement was just an alibi for Knox, which she had asked him to provide and that this was a crock. He actually throws her under the bus and says she didn't return to his bedsit until 1:00. Such an honour bound chap! Bill Williams' chest will be bursting with pride for 'the kid'.